>Interesting thought. Could there be "shunned" Bitcoins where, if they held certain blacklisted wallets in their history, businesses and users would choose not to accept them?
This is the mechanism I always thought the feds would use to go after bitcoin. "Possession of stolen property" - My understanding of the law in my area is that I am breaking the law if I possess stolen property, even if I can prove that I obtained said property legitimately and even if I couldn't reasonably be expected to know that said property was stolen.
What if the feds decided to apply the same thing to bitcoins? I mean, what if you legitimately obtain bitcoins that are, in fact, stolen property? Or bitcoins that were used in a law-breaking transaction?
This is the mechanism I always thought the feds would use to go after bitcoin. "Possession of stolen property" - My understanding of the law in my area is that I am breaking the law if I possess stolen property, even if I can prove that I obtained said property legitimately and even if I couldn't reasonably be expected to know that said property was stolen.
What if the feds decided to apply the same thing to bitcoins? I mean, what if you legitimately obtain bitcoins that are, in fact, stolen property? Or bitcoins that were used in a law-breaking transaction?